4 ms·

> And then another driver t-boned her because he didn’t have enough distance to stop, also cleary partially at fault IMO. Not partially at fault; completely an

> And then another driver t-boned her because he didn’t have enough distance to stop, also cleary partially at fault IMO. Not partially at fault; completely and totally at fault (except if we're talking about someone deliberately trying to cause a crash in which case I'll settle for partially). The reality is there could be a hundred reasons the car stopped, the driver being an idiot is only one of them. Mechanical failure, something unseen from the following car, a door flying open, someone stepping out in front of them, a queue in front of them which is not obvious from behind etc. If you are not leaving enough room to come to a stop when the car in front does then you are riding your luck, there are no two ways about it.

giantg2 4y ago
It sounds like the example was not of a car they were following, but one that pulled out infront of them and stopped in their lane. Just as you are referencing possible excuses for that driver, we could come up with possible excuses for the driver that pulled out (like pulling out suddenly without enough distance to react even if the other car was going under the speed limit). We also need to understand that being at fault isn't 1-to-1 with who was being safe. Typically, if you pull out and get t-boned by someone who has the right of way and is generally following the law, the person being t-boned is at fault for failing to yield. Where a vehicle is impacted plays a huge role in investigators determining who is at fault. Now if you run into the back of the person in front of you, it's almost always your fault, unless the person in front was driving carelessly or recklessly (brake check, for example) but would still involve partial fault in many cases. So really, we can't say either way without knowing a lot more.

4 ms·

> And then another driver t-boned her because he didn’t have enough distance to stop, also cleary partially at fault IMO. Not partially at fault; completely an

by VBprogrammer 4y ago

giantg2 4y ago
It sounds like the example was not of a car they were following, but one that pulled out infront of them and stopped in their lane. Just as you are referencing possible excuses for that driver, we could come up with possible excuses for the driver that pulled out (like pulling out suddenly without enough distance to react even if the other car was going under the speed limit). We also need to understand that being at fault isn't 1-to-1 with who was being safe. Typically, if you pull out and get t-boned by someone who has the right of way and is generally following the law, the person being t-boned is at fault for failing to yield. Where a vehicle is impacted plays a huge role in investigators determining who is at fault. Now if you run into the back of the person in front of you, it's almost always your fault, unless the person in front was driving carelessly or recklessly (brake check, for example) but would still involve partial fault in many cases. So really, we can't say either way without knowing a lot more.